I’d agree with you in terms of the practicalities, at least in relation to forfeiture for rent arrears as the easy option. But I suppose for pre L&T (Covenants) Act 1995 leases, the risk is there. I can’t see any solicitor saying “look, there’s a chance the landlord will come after you for this, but it’s not very likely so I’d recommend you don’t bother with getting a covenant”. In that, at least, it is not just a work creation device for solicitors, but an effect of the law. The practical benefit is a diminuition of risk, even if the risk is a small one.

I couldn’t comment on the licence to assign, but that does sound rather more unnecessary.

As a general point, it would, I think, be fair to say that it is not unknown for solicitors to come up with cost creation schemes, although not, I hasten to say, at my firm, who have impressed me with the scrupulousness of their billing.

I am referring to deeds of covenant required as a condition of assignment of a normal residential long flat lease. (I know there are cases where there is no privity of estate for a separate mangement company that is a party to a lease - in those cases it may be understandable - but I’m not thinking about those.)

My simple brain says that the lessee for the time being is bound by the terms of the lease in any event and if he doesn’t comply, pay the service charge, etc., then the Landlord ultimately can forfeit and resell at usually a huge windfall profit. A deed of covnenat might be significant in commercial situations where a landlord may want to be able to recover the rent under the lease from a previous lessee which might be higher than the rent obtainable if the lease was forfieted and relet.

In residential long lease situations I just can’t see it - why would any landlord want to go and look for a previous lessee to recover a money judgement when he can forfeit? Also former residential lessees are more difficult to find. Commercial trennats are more likely to be companies whose registered offices are easily traceable.

I’m forced to conclude that the only remaining reason is to allow the solicitor (or possibly the managing agent) the managing agent to collect a sum of money for processing a standard deed of covenant. I have a case at the moment where references for a licence to assign (consent not to be unreasonably withheld) have been supplied to the managing agent and I can’t see why the managing agent can’t write a letter consenting to the assignment, but instead my clients have had to pay £525 vat for a totally unnecessary licence to assign. I think this is unprofessional and solicitors should have a professional duty to advise their clients not to require such documentation where there is no practical benefit for the client, but only for the solicitor.

What do others think about this?

Unfortunately high street firms are the worst, with many being kings of their particular little castle, arrogant, smug and conceited. I complained to a local firm on behalf of a client who had been billed for work six years after it was undertaken, and instead of dealing with the complaint, the firm reported me to the law soc for holding myself out as a solicitor. No wonder the public dislike the profession so much, when it attracts so many arrogant fools.